foundations of contrastive hierarchy theory
TRANSCRIPT
B. Elan Dresher
Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory
Introduction
Monday 26 October 2020
Introduc)on
Part I: Historical Antecedents
Part II:A Theory of Contrast
Conclusion
2
InthistalkIwillpresentabriefintroductiontoatheoryofcontrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology.
Istartfromtheassumptionthatphonologyisaboutcontrast;withoutcontrast,thereisnophonology,onlyphoneticsorthephysicsofspeech(Dresher&vanderHulsttoappear).
Introduction
Thequestion,whichContrastiveHierarchyTheoryaddresses,ishowcontrastshouldbeincorporatedintophonologicaltheory.
ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisbuiltonessentiallytwoideas:
3
TheEirstideaisthatphonologicalprimes(inmycase,binaryfeatures)arecomputedhierarchically,withthechoiceandorderingoftheprimesbeinglanguageparticular.
Thesecondhypothesisisthatonly contrastiveprimesarecomputedbythephonology;non-contrastivefeaturescanbeadded,forexamplebyenhancement,inapost-phonologicalcomponent.
Introduc*on
IwillshowhowthetheoryhasbeenappliedtovowelreductioninBrazilianPortugueseandtheacquisitionofitsvowelsystem.
4
IwillthenshowhowtheWestGermanicvowelsystemprovidesachallengingempiricaltestofthetheory(spoileralert:thetheorywillpassthetest!).
Beforegettingtothat,inthefirstpartofthetalkIwillshowthatthecentralideasofContrastiveHierarchyTheory,inoneformoranother,havebeenhidinginplainsightatthecentreofthehistoryofphonology.
Introduction
IwillbeginwithHenrySweet,atthedawnofmodernphonology.
Mostdirectly,thetheoryadaptsproposalsbyRomanJakobsonandN.S.TrubetzkoytothegenerativeframeworkofNoamChomskyandMorrisHalle.
5
Introduc)on
Part I: Historical Antecedents
Part II:A Theory of Contrast
Conclusion
Thestructureandprogressofthistalkisindicatedinthepanel:
youarehere
6
Monday 26 October 2020
7
Part I: Historical Antecedents
1. Sweet 1877
Contrastive Properties and
‘Broad Romic’ Transcription
Introduc8on
Part I
1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy
3. Jakobson
4. Halle
5. Chomsky & Halle
Part II
Conclusions
Monday 26 October 2020
Contrast and Broad Transcription
AccordingtoDanielJones(1967:256),HenrySweet(1845–1912)wastheEirsttodistinguishadetailedphonetictranscription(whathecalled‘NarrowRomic’)fromaphonemictranscriptionsuitabletoanindividuallanguage(‘BroadRomic’).
8
Forexample,thevowelsintheEnglishwordsbait andbet differinthreeways:thevowelinbait islongerandtenserthaninbet,andisadiphthong,whereasthevowelinbet isamonophthong.
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
Anaccuratephonetictranscriptionwouldindicateallthesedistinctions;inthecurrentnotationoftheInternationalPhoneticAlphabet(IPA),theyaretranscribedasshown.
Contrast and Broad Transcription
baitbet
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
9
Thesethreedifferences,however,arenotindependent:recombiningthevariouspropertiestocreatenewvowelsasshownwouldnotresultinanewworddistinctfrombothbait andbet,butwouldbeheardassome(perhapsodd-sounding)variantofoneofthesewords.
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
Sweet(1877:104)writes:“wemaylaydownasageneralrulethatonlythosedistinctionsofsoundsrequiretobesymbolizedinanyonelanguagewhichareindependentlysigniEicant.”
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences Non-contrastingvowels
[eː], [ej], [e], [ɛː], [ɛj], [ɛːj]
10
Further,“iftwocriteriaofsigniEicanceareinseparablyassociated,suchasquantityandnarrownessorwideness[i.e.,tensenessorlaxness/BED],weonlyneedindicateoneofthem.”Sweetproposes(1877:109–110)thatinbroadtranscription[eːj]shouldbetranscribed‘ei’(or,equivalently,‘ej’)and[ɛ]as‘e’.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
Broadei or eje
Thus,ofthethreedifferencesinthevowels,hechoosesthepresenceofanoff-glidej assignificant,ignoringbothquantity(length)andnarrownessorwideness(tensenessorlaxness).
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
11
Inthiscasehegivestherationaleforhischoice.Heobserves(p.110):“Thenarrownessofall[English]vowelsisuncertain”,especially/ij/and/ej/.
Thatis,vowelscanvaryinthedegreetowhichtheyaretenseorlaxwithoutessentiallychangingtheidentityofthevowel,aslongasotherpropertiesdonotchange.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
Broadei or eje
Narrownessnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ɛ:j][ɛ] or [e]
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
12
Similarly,heEinds(p.18)that“originallyshortvowelscanbelengthenedandyetkeptquitedistinctfromtheoriginallongs.”
Thatis,[bɛt](bet)canbelengthenedto[bɛːt]withoutpassingintobait,and[beːjt](bait)canbeshortenedto[bejt]withoutbeingperceivedasbet.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
Lengthnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ej][ɛ] or [ɛ:]
Broadei or eje
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
13
Whiletensenessandlengthcanbealteredwithoutchangingonevowelphonemeintoanotherone,presumablythesameisnotthecaseforthethirddistinguishingproperty.
Addingaglidetothevowelinbet,orremovingitfrombait,couldcausetheresultingvoweltobeperceivedashavingchangedcategory.
Contrast and Broad Transcription
Glideiscontrastive[e:j] not [eː][ɛ] not [ɛj]
Broadei or eje
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
14
WecanconcludefromhisdiscussionthatSweet’sanalysispositsthatthecontrastivepropertiesofboththevowelsinbait andbet aremidandfront,withnocontrastivespecificationfortensenessorquantity.
Thedifferenceinthetwowordsresidesintheadditionofasecondsegmenttothevowelinbait.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
15
Contrastivepropertiesmid, front, off-glide jmid, front
Broadei or eje
Sweetdidnotproposeamethodforcomputingcontrastiveproperties,nordidheconsistentlyattempttoidentifywhatthecontrastivepropertiesareforeverysegment(Dresher2016).
Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on
Thefurtherdevelopmentoftheseideas,andtheirconnectionwithfeaturehierarchies,camesomeyearslaterintheworkofthePragueSchoollinguists,notablyN.S.Trubetzkoy(1890–1938)andRomanJakobson(1896–1982).
!onlycontrastivepropertiesneedbetranscribed,
!andthesepropertiescanbeidentiEiedbyobservinghowsoundsfunctioninalanguage.
However,wecanseeinhisworktheideasthat:
16
Part I: Historical Antecedents
2. Trubetzkoy 1939
Phonemic Content and
Contrast as ‘Point of View’
Introduc)on
Part I
1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy
3. Jakobson
4. Halle
5. Chomsky & Halle
Part II
Conclusions
17
Monday 26 October 2020
N.S.Trubetzkoy’sGrundzügederPhonologie (1939;Englishversion1969,newcriticalSpanishedition2019)isnotableforitsinsightsintothenatureofcontrast.
Trubetzkoy’s Grundzüge der Phonologie
18
AnimportantnotionofTrubetzkoy’sisphonemiccontent:“Byphonemiccontent weunderstandallphonologicallydistinctivepropertiesofaphoneme…”(Trubetzkoy1969:66).
Phonemic content
“EachphonemehasadeEinablephonemiccontentonlybecausethesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeEiniteorderorstructure.”(1969:67–8)
“thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthegivenphonemicsystem …”(1969:67)
19
Phonemic content and structure of the system
“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsade=initeorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe
givenphonemicsystem …”
Theseremarkssuggestthatthephonemiccontentofaphoneme,thatis,thesetofitscontrastiveproperties,oughttoderive fromitspositioninthesystemofdistinctiveoppositions.
Therefore,weneedawaytodetermineaphoneme’spositioninthesystemofoppositionsbefore wehavedetermineditsdistinctiveproperties.
20
Phonemic content and structure of the system
“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsade=initeorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe
givenphonemicsystem …”
Trubetzkoydoesnotexplicitlyshowushowtodothis;however,awayofprovidinganorderorstructure tothesystemofcontrastsisviathehierarchicalbranchingtreesthatbecameprominentlaterintheworkofJakobson.
FeaturehierarchiesarealreadyimplicitinTrubetzkoy(1939);considerhisdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.
21
Thatis,thelowvowel/a/ischaracterizedonlybyitsheight;inourterms,itisassignedonlythefeature[+low].
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
The vowel system of Latin
[+low]
[–low]
TrubetzkoyobservesthatinLatin,asinmanyEive-vowelsystems,thelowvoweldoesnotparticipateintonalitycontrasts;‘tonality’referstobacknessorliprounding,thatis,propertiesthataffectthesecondformant(F2).
Latin
Buthowcanweprevent/a/fromreceivingotherfeatures?
Wecanifweassigncontrastivefeaturesinanorder,inafeaturehierarchy.
22
Inordertoexclude/a/fromreceivingtonalityfeatures,itisnecessarytoorder[±low]atthetopofthefeaturehierarchy:thishastheeffectofseparating/a/fromtheothervowels.
Since/a/isalreadyuniquelydistinguished,itwillreceivenofurtherfeatures.
/a/[+low] [–low]
The vowel system of La*n
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
[+low]
[–low]
Latin Topofthehierarchy:[low]
23
Whattheothertwo(or,moreunusually,three)featuresaredependsontheevidencefromthelanguage.
Commonfive-vowelsystemsusethefeatures[±back]or[±round]and[±high].
24
/a/[+low] [–low]
Topofthehierarchy:[low]
The vowel system of Latin
[–high] [+high] [–high] [+high]
[–back/round] [+back/round]
/e/ /i/ /o/ /u/
24
Thenotionofafeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit inTrubetzkoy’sdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.
Invokingafeaturehierarchyisawaytomakesenseofhisanalysis.
InthecaseofPolabian,however,Trubetzkoyexplicitly referstoahierarchy.
Polabian: “A certain hierarchy”
Heobserves(1969:102–3;2019:156)that“acertainhierarchyexisted”inthevowelsystemofPolabian,wherebythecontrastbetweenfrontandbackvowelsishigherthanthecontrastbetweenroundedandunroundedvowels.
25
Anotherimportantinsightiscontainedina1936articleaddressedtopsychologistsandphilosophers(Trubetzkoy2001[1936]:20):
Contrast depends on point of view
Whatdoesthismean?TosaythatthecorrectclassiEicationdependsonone’spointofviewmeansthatphonologicalcontrastscanvary fromlanguagetolanguage,andcannotbedeterminedsimplybyinspectinganinventory.
ThecorrectclassiEicationofanopposition“dependsonone’spointofview”;but“itisneithersubjectivenorarbitrary,for
thepointofviewisimpliedbythesystem.”
26
WehaveseenthatinLatinthelowvowel/a/issetapartfromtheothervowels,inTrubetzkoy’sanalysis.
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
Butthisisnottheonlywaytodrawthecontrastsinafive-vowelsystem.
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
[+low]
[–low]
Latin
27
Itispossible,forexample,togroupthelowvowel/a/withtheother[–round]vowels.Troubetzkoy proposesthatArchi(EastCaucasian,inCentralDaghestan)hasavowelsystemthatisdividedinthismanner.
[+round][–round]
Hesaysthisbecauseofthewaythesoundsbehave.
Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
28
Trubetzkoyobservesthataconsonantalroundingcontrastisneutralizedbeforeandaftertheroundedvowels/u/and/o/,contrastingthesevowelswithunrounded/i/,/e/,and/a/.
[+round][–round]Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
“Thismeansthatallvowelsaredividedintoroundedandunroundedvowels,whilethebackorfrontpositionofthetongueprovesirrelevant…”(Trubetzkoy1969:100–1).
29
Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[±round]Eirst,dividingthevowelsintotwogroups:/i,e,a/and/u,o/.
[+round][–round]Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
Furtherdistinctionswithinthesegroupsaremadebyotherfeatures;thetreebelowshowsonepossiblefeaturehierarchy.
[round]>[high]>[low]
[+high] [–high]/i/
[+high] [–high]/u/ /o/
[–low] [+low]/e/ /a/
[–round] [+round]
30
Japanese
InJapanese,Trubetzkoyarguesthatneutralizationoftheoppositionbetweenpalatalizedandnon-palatalizedconsonantsbefore/i/ and /e/ showsthatthesevowelsareputintooppositionwiththeothervowels/a,o,u/.
[+front] [–front]
Five-vowel systems: Japanese
Thegoverningoppositionisthatbetweenfrontandbackvowels,“liproundingbeingirrelevant”(Trubetzkoy1969:101).
/a/
/o//e/
/i/ /u/
31
Japanese[+front] [–front]
Five-vowel systems: Japanese
/a/
/o//e/
/i/ /u/
Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[front]Eirst.TherestofthetreeisadaptedfromHirayama(2003).ThesefeaturetreesareimplicitinTrubetzkoy,buttheybecomeexplicitintheworkofRomanJakobsonandhiscollaborators.
[front]>[open]>[low]
[+front] [–front]
[+open] [–open]/e/ /i/
[+open] [–open]/u/
[+low] [–low]/a/ /o/
32
Part I: Historical Antecedents
3. Jakobson 1941
The Acquisition of
Phonological Contrasts
Introduction
Part I
1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy
3. Jakobson
4. Halle
5. Chomsky & Halle
Part II
Conclusions
33
Monday 26 October 2020
Jakobson’sKindersprache (1941;Englishtrans.1968,Spanish1974),advancesthenotionthatcontrasts arecrucialinphonologicalacquisitionandthattheydevelopinahierarchicalorder.
Jakobson’s Kindersprache
Inparticular,heproposesthatlearnersbeginwithbroadcontraststhataresplitbystagesintoprogressivelyEinerones. 34
TheacquisitionofvowelsystemssetoutinJakobson(1941)andJakobson&Halle(1956)followsthisschema.
Acquisition sequences (vowels)
Atthefirststage,thereisonlyasinglevowel.Astherearenocontrasts,wecansimplydesignateit/V/.
/V/
vowel
35
Jakobson&Hallewritethatthislonevowelisthemaximallyopenvowel[a],the‘optimalvowel’.
Acquisition sequences (vowels)
Butwedon’tneedtobethatspeciEic:wecanunderstandthistobeadefaultvalue,oratypicalbutnotobligatoryinstantiation.
/V/
vowel
[a]
36
Inthenextstageitisproposedthatthesinglevowelsplitsintoanarrow(high)vowel/I/,whichistypically[i],andawide(low)vowel,/A/,typically[a].
Acquisi*on sequences (vowels)
Iwillcontinuetounderstandthesevaluesasdefaults.
vowel
/I/
widenarrow
/A/
/V/
37
Inthenextstagethenarrowvowelsplitsintoapalatal(front)vowel/I/andavelar(backorround)vowel/U/,typically[u].
Acquisi*on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
/A/palatal velar
/I/ /U/
/I/
38
AftertheEirsttwostages,Jakobson&Halleallowvariationintheorderofacquisitionofvowelcontrasts.
Acquisi*on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
palatal velar
/I/ /U/
Thewidebranchcanbeexpandedtoparallelthenarrowone.
/A/
/æ/ /a/
palatal velar
39
Orthenarrowvowelscandeveloparoundingcontrastinoneorbothbranches.
Acquisi*on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
palatal velar /a/
unrnd rnd
/i/ /y/
unrnd rnd
/ɨ/ /u/
40
Contras*ve features assigned hierarchically
Thisapproachhastwonotablecharacteristics:
Continuinginthisfashionwewillarriveatacompleteinventoryofthephonemesinalanguage,witheachphonemeassignedasetofcontrastivepropertiesthatdistinguishitfromeveryotherone.
!Onlycontrastivefeaturesareassignedtoeachphoneme.
!Contrastivefeaturesareassignedhierarchically,inawaythatcanberepresentedbyabranchingtree.
41
Part I: Historical Antecedents
4. Halle 1959
An argument for specification
by branching trees
Introduc)on
Part I
1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy
3. Jakobson
4. Halle
5. Chomsky & Halle
Part II
Conclusions
42
Monday 26 October 2020
An argument for branching trees
InTheSoundPatternofRussian (1959;SPR), Hallemakesanargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees;thisisthefirstsuchargumentIhavefoundintheliterature.
43
Hearguesthatfeaturespecificationbyabranchingtreeistheonlywaytoensurethatsegmentsarekeptproperlydistinct.
Figure I-1 in The Sound Pattern of Russian, p. 46
44
(ThisishistreeforRussian.)
SpeciEically,Halleproposed(1959:32)thatphonemesmustmeettheDistinctnessCondition:
Segment-type/A/willbesaidtobedifferentfromsegment-type/B/,ifandonlyifatleastonefeaturewhichisphonemicinboth,hasadifferentvaluein/A/thanin/B/;i.e.,plusintheformerandminusinthelatter,orviceversa.
TheDistinctnessCondition
Thisformulationisdesignedtodisallowcontrastsinvolvingazerovalue ofafeature.
The Distinctness Condition
45
Considerthetypicalsub-inventory/p,b,m/shownbelow,andsupposewecharacterizeitintermsoftwobinaryfeatures,[±voiced]and[±nasal].
IntermsoffullspeciEications,/p/is[–voiced,–nasal],/b/is[+voiced,–nasal],and/m/is[+voiced,+nasal].
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++
Whichofthesefeaturesiscontrastive?Manypeoplereasonasfollows:
How do we establish contrasts?
46
Weobservethat/p/and/b/aredistinguishedonlyby[voiced];sothesespeciEicationsmust becontrastive.Similarly,/b/and/m/aredistinguishedonlyby[nasal];thesespeciEicationsmustalso becontrastive.Whatabouttheuncircled speciEications?Thesearepredictablefromthecircledones:
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++
47
How do we establish contrasts?
Since/p/istheonly[–voiced]phonemeinthisinventory,itsspeciEicationfor[nasal]ispredictable,henceredundant.Wecanwritearuleorconstraint:Similarly,/m/istheonly[+nasal]phoneme,soitsspeciEicationfor[voiced]isredundant:Thisisastill-popularwayofthinkingaboutcontrastivespeciEications;wecancallitthe‘MinimalDifference’approach(e.g.Padgett2003,Calabrese2005,Campos-Astorkiza 2009,Nevins2010).
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++ If[–voiced],then[–nasal]
If[+nasal],then[+voiced]
48
How do we establish contrasts?
AccordingtoMinimalDifference,afeatureisonlycontrastiveinasegmentifitistheonly featurethatdistinguishesthatsegmentfromanotherone.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+
ButaccordingtotheDistinctnessCondition,/p/isnot ‘differentfrom’/m/:whereonehasafeature,theotherhasnone.
Therefore,thesespecificationsarenotproperlycontrastive.
49
How do we establish contrasts?
TheyviolatetheDistinctnessConditionbecausenofeaturehierarchyyieldsthisresult.
Ifweorder[voiced]>[nasal],wegeneratean‘extra’speciEicationon/m/.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
++
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/
[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/
The Distinctness Condition
50
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/
–/m/
+
[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/–
Ifweorder[nasal]>[voiced],wegeneratean‘extra’specificationon/p/.
51
The Dis*nctness Condi*on
EitherofthespeciEicationsbelowisproperlycontrastive.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/
[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/
+
Contrastive ≠ Unpredictable
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+–
[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/
[voiced] > [nasal] [nasal] > [voiced]Notethatinahierarchicalapproach,acontrastivefeatureisnotnecessarilyunpredictable.
52
Therefore, according to SPR, to ensure that all the phonemes of a language aredistinct from one another, it is necessary that their feature speciEications must begenerable by a branching tree.
53
Contrast is hierarchical
IbelievethatHalle’sargumentiscorrect:asdemonstratedbyArchangeli (1988)andinmoredetailbyDresher(2009),theMinimalDifferenceapproachoftenfailstoyieldany intelligiblesetofspeciEications.Itisthewrongtheoryofcontrast.
Conceptually,themainflawofMinimalDifferenceisitsfailuretorecognizethatcontrastiverelationsinaninventoryexistnotjustbetweenpairsofsegments,butalsobetweengroups ofsegmentsatdifferentlevelsofthehierarchy.
Thus,thereisasenseinwhichcontrastisindeedminimal,almostbydeEinition;butonly whenviewedinhierarchicallayers,andnotinpairwisecomparisons.
54
Decline of the branching trees
ItisironicthatwhileTheSoundPatternofRussian containsthisoriginalargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees,atthesametimeitsanalysisofRussiancontributedtounderminingthewholenotionofcontrastivespeciEication(Dresher&Halltoappear).Becauseofthat,andduealsotoargumentsbyLightner(1963)andStanley(1967),underspeciEicationwasabandonedaltogetherinChomsky&Halle’sTheSoundPatternofEnglish (SPE,1968),alongwiththebranchingtrees(forreasons,seeDresher2009:96–104).Theresultwasthatlanguage-particularfeaturecontrastsdidnotplayaroleinthetheoryofgenerativegrammarthatdevelopedfromSPE.
55
Part I: Historical Antecedents
5. Chomsky & Halle 1968
The Generative Framework
and Approach to Phonology
Introduc)on
Part I
1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy
3. Jakobson
4. Halle
5. Chomsky & Halle
Part II
Conclusions
56
Monday 26 October 2020
ThoughIdepartfromSPEwithrespecttocontrastandthenatureoffeatures,Chomsky&HalleprovidethebroadgenerativeframeworkandcognitiveapproachtophonologythatIassumeinthetheoryofcontrasttowhichInowturn.
The genera*ve framework
57
Part II: A Theory of Contrast
1. Main Tenets of Contrastive
Hierarchy Theory (CHT)
Introduction
Part I
Part II
1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT
3. Acquisition: BPvowel system
4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels
5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut
Conclusions
58
Monday 26 October 2020
Return of the branching trees
Asatheoryofphonologicalrepresentations,branchingtreeswererevived,underothernames,byClements(2001;2003;2009),andindependentlyattheUniversityofToronto,wheretheyarecalledcontrastivefeaturehierarchies(Dresher,Piggott,&Rice1994;Dyck1995;Zhang1996;Dresher1998b;Dresher&Rice2007;Hall2007;Dresher2009;Mackenzie2009;etc.).
ItisthelatterapproachIwillbepresentinghere.Ithasgoneundervariousnames:ModiEiedContrastiveSpeciEication(MCS),or‘TorontoSchool’phonology,orContrastandEnhancementTheory;IcallitContrastiveHierarchyTheory(CHT).
Idon’tclaimthereisany‘standardversion’ofthistheory;inwhatfollows,IwillpresentthetheoryasIunderstandit.
59
Contrast and hierarchy
TheEirstmajorbuildingblockofourtheoryisthatcontrastsarecomputedhierarchicallybyorderedfeatures thatcanbeexpressedasabranchingtree.
BranchingtreesaregeneratedbytheSuccessiveDivisionAlgorithm (Dresher1998b,2003,2009):
Assigncontrastivefeaturesbysuccessivelydividingtheinventoryuntileveryphonemehasbeendistinguished.
TheSuccessiveDivisionAlgorithm
60
/a/
/i/
Criteria for ordering featuresWhatarethecriteriaforselectingandorderingthefeatures?
Phoneticsisclearlyimportant,inthattheselectedfeaturesmustbeconsistentwiththephoneticpropertiesofthephonemes.
/a/
/i/
Forexample,acontrastbetween/i/and/a/wouldmostlikelyinvolveaheightfeaturelike[low]or[high],thoughotherchoicesarepossible,e.g.[front]or[advanced/retractedtongueroot].
[low]
[front]
61
Inthiscase,/i/and/ə/wouldbedistinguishedbyacontrastivefeature,eventhoughtheirsurfacephoneticsareidentical.
Criteria for ordering features
/a/
/i/
[low]
InsomedialectsofInuktitut,forexample,anunderlyingcontrastbetween/i/and/ə/isneutralizedatthesurface,withboth/i/and/ə/beingrealizedasphonetic[i](Compton&Dresher2011).
Ofcourse,thecontrastivespeciEicationofaphonemecouldsometimesdeviatefromthesurfacephonetics.
/ə/[front]/u/
[round]
62
A feature can be said to be active if it plays a rolein the phonological computation; that is, if it isrequired for the expression of phonologicalregularities in a language, including both staticphonotactic patterns and patterns of alternation.
PhonologicalActivity
Contrast and phonological ac*vityAstheaboveexampleshows,thewayasoundpatterns canoverrideitsphonetics(Sapir1925).
Thus,weconsiderasmostfundamentalthatfeaturesshouldbeselectedandorderedsoastoreElectthephonologicalactivity inalanguage,whereactivityisdeEinedasfollows(adaptedfromClements(2001:77):
63
ThesecondmajortenethasbeenformulatedbyHall(2007)astheContrastivistHypothesis:
A theory of contras*ve specifica*on
TheContrastivistHypothesisThe phonological component of a language Loperates only on those features which are necessaryto distinguish the phonemes of L from one another.
Thatis,only contrastivefeaturescanbephonologicallyactive.Ifthishypothesisiscorrect,itfollowsasacorollarythat
CorollarytotheContrastivistHypothesisIf a feature is phonologically active, then it must becontrastive.
64
Domain of the Contrastivist Hypothesis
Onthishypothesis,underlyinglexicalrepresentationsconsistonlyofcontrastivespeciEications.
Theserepresentationsformtheinputtothecontrastivephonology, whichisthedomaininwhichtheContrastivistHypothesisapplies.
OutputofContrastivePhonology
UnderlyingLexicalRepresentations Contrastivefeaturesonly
PhonologygovernedbytheContrastivistHypothesis
65
Domain of the Contrastivist HypothesisStevens,Keyser&Kawasaki(1986)proposethatfeaturecontrastscanbeenhanced byotherfeatureswithsimilaracousticeffects(seealsoStevens&Keyser1989;Keyser&Stevens2001,2006).
Ourhypothesisisthatenhancementtakesplaceafterthecontrastivephonology,whenfurtherphoneticdetailisspeciEied.
SurfacePhoneticRepresentations
Phoneticprocesses:enhancement,non-contrastivefeatures
66
OutputofContrastivePhonology
UnderlyingLexicalRepresentations Contrastivefeaturesonly
PhonologygovernedbytheContrastivistHypothesis
Enhancement of underspecified featuresForexample,avowelthatis[+back]and[–low] canenhancethesefeaturesby:
[+low]
[+back]
[–back]
Idesignateenhancementfeatureswithgreen curlybrackets{ }.
/i/ /u/
/a/
[–low]
{+round}
{+high} Theseenhancementsarenotnecessary,however,andotherrealizationsarepossible(Dyck1995;Hall2011).
adding{+round} toenhance[+back] (giving[u,ʊ,o,ɔ],not[ɨ,ɯ,ɤ,ʌ]
adding{+high} toenhance[–low] (giving[u,ʊ],not[o,ɔ]
67
Markedness
Iassumethatmarkednessislanguageparticular(Rice2003;2007)andaccountsforasymmetriesbetweenthetwovaluesofafeature,wheretheseexist.
Afurtherassumptionisthatfeaturesarebinary,andthateveryfeaturehasamarked andunmarked value.
Forexample,weexpectthatunmarkedvaluesserveasdefaults,andmaybemoreorlessinert.
68
Neutralization: Vowel reduction
Trubetzkoy(1939:71–5)suggestedthatneutralization—thesuspensionofacontrastincertainpositions—canhavedifferenttypesofoutcomes.
Inothercases,thereducedvowelcannotbephoneticallyequatedwithaparticularstressedvowel;thatis,neutralizationistoavowelthathasadifferentrepresentationfromboththemarkedandunmarkedstressedvowels.
Inthecaseofvowelreduction,forexample,vowelsthatcontrastinstressedpositionmightneutralizetotheunmarkedvowelwhennotstressed.
CHTcanelegantlyrepresentbothtypesofreduction,whichariseinBrazilianPortuguese.
69
Brazilian Portuguese vowel reduction
Theywrite(2004:229)thatinpre-stressedposition,“thequalityofthecorrespondingstressedvowelisroughlypreserved.”
AccordingtoBarbosa&Albano(2004),aSãoPaulospeakerhadthestressedvowelsshownbelow.
Stressedposition a ue ɔɛ oi
Beforethestress a ue oi
70
AccordingtoBarbosa&Albano(2004),aSãoPaulospeakerhadthestressedvowelsshownbelow.
Theywrite(2004:229)thatinpre-stressedposition,“thequalityofthecorrespondingstressedvowelisroughlypreserved.”
ButthisisnotthecaseforunstressedvowelsinEinalposition.
Stressedposition a ue ɔɛ o
Finalunstressed ɐ
i
Beforethestress a ue oi
ɪ ʊ
Brazilian Portuguese vowel reduc*on
71
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
Spahr(2012)proposesaCHTaccountofBrazilianPortuguesevowelreduction;IhavemodifiedhishierarchytothatproposedbyBohn(2015,2017)forthePaulistadialect.
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/
/e/
[+ATR]
/ɛ/
[–ATR]
/o/
[+ATR]
/ɔ/
[–ATR]
72
(SeeCarvalho2011foracontrastivehierarchyanalysisoftheEuropeanPortuguesevowelsystemusingprivativeelements.)
Inpre-stressedposition,thereareno[ATR]contrastsunderthe[–high]nodesnumbered3.
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/
/e/
[+ATR]
/ɛ/
[–ATR]
/o/
[+ATR]
/ɔ/
[–ATR]
73
Spahr proposesthatthesenodesareinterpretedasarchiphonemesa laTrubetzkoy(seealsoSpahr2014).
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
Thenewrepresentations[+back,–low,–high]and[–back,–high]receivetheirownphoneticinterpretations;inthisSoutheasterndialect,theyarerealizedas[o]and[e].
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/ [e]
[o]
74
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
BPdialectsdifferastowhether[o,e]or[ɔ,ɛ]aretheresultsofneutralization(seeNevins2012fordiscussionandreferences).
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/
75
Broadlyspeaking,‘southeastern’dialectshavethe[+ATR][o,e],and‘northeastern’dialectsreduceto[–ATR][ɔ,ɛ].
[e] ~ [ɛ]
[o] ~ [ɔ]
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
Underspecificationallowsfor‘flexibilityofinterpretation’(Nevins2012)thatallowseither[+ATR]or[–ATR]tobelessmarked.
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/
76
[e] ~ [ɛ]
[o] ~ [ɔ]
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
Inunstressedfinalpositionthecontrastsunderthenodesnumbered2aresuppressed,andthesegmentsunderthesenodesreceivedistinctphoneticinterpretationsas[ʊ]and[ɪ].
[–back]2
/u/
[+high] [–high]3
[+back]
[+low]1/a/
[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]
/i/
77
[e] ~ [ɛ]
[o] ~ [ɔ]
[ʊ]
[ɪ]
Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory
Inthisnewsetofcontraststhesegmentundernode1alsoreceivesadistinctphoneticinterpretation,[ɐ].
[–back]2[+back]
[+low]1[ɐ]
[–low]2
78
[ʊ]
[ɪ]
Vowel reduction in Contrastive Hierarchy Theory
Part II: Contrastive Hierarchy
Theory (CHT)
2. Features in Contrastive
Hierarchy Theory
Introduc)on
Part I
Part II
1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT
3. Acquisi)on: BPvowel system
4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels
5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut
Conclusions
79
Monday 26 October 2020
Mielke(2008)andSamuels(2011)arguethatphonologicalfeaturesarenotinnate,butrather‘emerge’inthecourseofacquisition.
Emergent features?
Theyarguethatinnatefeaturesaretoospecific,andnosinglesetofproposedfeaturesworksinallcases.
Butiffeaturesarenotinnate,whatcompelsthemtoemerge?
Weneedtoexplainwhyfeaturesinevitably emerge,andwhytheyhavethepropertiesthattheydo.
CHTprovidesananswertothisquestion:learnersmust arriveatasetofhierarchicallyorderedcontrastivefeatures.
80
Aninventoryof3phonemesallowsexactly2contrastivefeatures.Twovariantsareshown,differinginhowmarkedfeaturesaredistributed.
How many features are there?
[–F1][+F1]
[–F2][+F2]
/1/ /2/
/3/
3 phonemes: F1 > F2
[–F1][+F1]
[–F2][+F2]
/2/ /3/
/1/
3 phonemes: F1 > F2
81
A4-phonemeinventorycanhaveaminimumof2featuresandamaximumof3.
[–F1][+F1]
[–F2][+F2]
/1/ /2/
[–F1]
[–F2][+F2]
/2/
[+F1]
/1/
4 phonemes: minimum 4 phonemes: maximum
[–F2][+F2]
/3/ /4/
[+F3]
/3/
[–F3]
/4/
How many features are there?
82
Ingeneral,thenumberoffeaturesrequiredbyaninventoryofn elementswillfallinthefollowingranges:
3 1.58 2 24 2 2 35 2.32 3 4
theminimumnumberoffeatures=thesmallestinteger≥log2n
themaximumnumberoffeatures=n–1
6 2.58 3 5
Phonemes log2n min max
How many features are there?
83
Theminimumnumberoffeaturesgoesupveryslowlyasphonemesareadded.
7 2.81 3 68 3 3 710 3.32 4 9
Theupperlimitriseswithn.
12 3.58 4 11
Phonemes log2n min max
How many features are there?
84
However,systemsthatapproachtheupperlimitareextremelyuneconomical.
16 4 4 1520 4.32 5 1925 4.64 5 24
Atthemaxlimit,eachnewcontrastusesauniquefeatureunsharedbyanyotherphonemes.
32 5 5 31
Phonemes log2n min max
How many features are there?
85
Emergent features and UG
Thus,thecontrastivehierarchyandContrastivistHypothesisaccountforwhyphonologicalsystemsresembleeachotherintermsofrepresentations,withoutrequiringindividualfeaturestobeinnate.
Onthisview,theconceptofacontrastivehierarchyisaninnatepartofUniversalGrammar(UG),andisthegluethatbindsphonologicalrepresentationsandmakesthemappearsimilarfromlanguagetolanguage.
86
Part II: A Theory of Contrast
3. Acquisition:
The Brazilian Portuguese
Vowel System
Introduc)on
Part I
Part II
1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT
3. Acquisi)on: BPvowel system
4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels
5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut
Conclusions
87
Monday 26 October 2020
Branching trees in child language
Morerecently,Bohn(2015,2017)presentsaCHTanalysisoftheacquisitionoftheBrazilianPortuguese(BP)vowelsystembythreechildren.
Branchingtreesdidnotdisappearcompletelyfromphonology:theycontinuedtobeusedinchildlanguagestudies,fortheyareanaturalwaytodescribedevelopingphonologicalinventories.
(Someexamplesare:Pye,Ingram,&List1987;Ingram1988,1989;Levelt 1989;Dinnsen etal.1990;Dinnsen 1992,1996;Fikkert 1994;seeDresher1998aforareview).
Brazilian Portuguese stressed vowelsThetreebelowagainshowstheBPvowels(Paulistadialect)instressedposition.Thehierarchyis[back]>[low]>[high]>[ATR].
[–back]
/u/
[+high] [–high]
[+back]
[+low]
/a/
[–low] [–high][+high]
/i/
/e/
[+ATR]
/ɛ/
[–ATR]
/o/
[+ATR]
/ɔ/
[–ATR]
89
Bohn(2015,2017) motivatesthishierarchybasedonthepatternsofactivityinthisdialect(seealsoBohn&Santos2018).
Acquisition of the BP vowel systemChildL.seemstobeaperfectJakobsonian:thefirstvowelis[a],andthenextoneis[i].ButcontrarytoJakobson,thisisnotaheightcontrast.
[–back][+back]
[a]
90
Itlookslikeone,butBohnobservesthatsubstitutionpatternssuggestratherthatisa[back]contrast,whichisthetopBPfeature(alsocontrarytoJakobson).
[i]
Acquisition of the BP vowel systemAm.’sfirstcontrastisbetween[a]and[e],not[i];Bohnproposesthat,aswithL.,thisrepresentsabacknesscontrast.
[–back]
91
BothL.andAm.makeaEirstcontrastthatreElectsthehighestBPfeature,whichis[back].AreallBrazilianchildrenthisfar-sighted?
[e]
[+back]
[a]
Apparentlynot!Thethirdchild,A.,beginsdifferently.
A.’sfirstcontrastisbetween[a]and[o].
[+low]
[a]
[–low]
[o]
92
Substitutionpatternssuggestthatthisisnotabacknessorroundnesscontrastbutaheightcontrast,basedon[low].
Acquisition of the BP vowel system
Inthenextstage,A.acquirescontrastive/i,e,u/.
/u/
[+high] [–high]
[+low]
/a/
[–low] [–high][+high]
/i/ /e/
/o/
93
Acquisition of the BP vowel system
Inthenextstage,A.acquirescontrastive/i,e,u/.
[–back]
/u/
[+high] [–high]
[+back]
[+low]
/a/
[–low] [–high][+high]
/i/ /e/
/o/
94
AtsomepointA.hastoreorganizethefeaturehierarchyinordertoarriveattheadultBPsystem,whichhas[back]>[low].
Acquisi*on of the BP vowel system
The[ATR]contrastbetween/e~ɛ/and/o~ɔ/isthelasttobeacquired.
[–back]
/u/
[+high] [–high]
[+low]
/a/
[–low] [–high][+high]
/i/
/e/
[+ATR]
/ɛ/
[–ATR]
/o/
[+ATR]
/ɔ/
[–ATR]
95
Thus,thethreechildrentakedifferentroutesinacquiringtheBPvowelsystem.
Acquisi*on of the BP vowel system
[+back]
TheorderofacquisitionofcontrastsismorevariablethanJakobsonallowed.
[–back]
/u/
[+high] [–high]
[+low]
/a/
[–low] [–high][+high]
/i/
/e/
[+ATR]
/ɛ/
[–ATR]
/o/
[+ATR]
/ɔ/
[–ATR]
96
Nevertheless,thegeneralideathatlearnersacquirecontrastsinahierarchy isafruitfulwaytomodelacquisition.
Acquisi*on of the BP vowel system
[+back]
Part II: A Theory of Contrast
4. Synchronic Phonology:
The Proto-Germanic
Short Vowel System
Introduc)on
Part I
Part II
1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT
3. Acquisi)on: BPvowel system
4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels
5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut
Conclusions
97
Monday 26 October 2020
Proto-Germanic short vowelsIwouldliketolooknowatProto-Germanic,whichiscommonlyassumedtohavehadthefourshortvowels*/i/,*/e/,*/a/,*/u/(Ringe 2006).
Shortvowels
Italsohadlongvowels,butthesewillnotberelevanthere(seeDresher2018fordiscussionofthelongvowels).WhyProto-Germanic?IpicktheProto-GermanicshortvowelsystemtoillustrateaCHTsynchronicanalysisfortworeasons:
First,becauseitslaterevolutionintoWestGermanicandOldEnglishraisessomeinterestingdiachronicissuesthatwewilllooksoon.
98
i u
e
a
Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features
Andsecond,becausealltheingredientsofaCHTanalysishavealreadybeenassembledbyAntonsen(1972)!
Aswehavecometoexpect,hisutilizationofacontrastivefeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit,andnotmentioned;howeverhisarticleisaniceillustrationofCHTargumentationavantlalettre.
ElmerAntonsenwasanAmericanlinguistandrunologistwhomademanycontributionstothestudyofGermanicphonology.
99
AntonsenproposesthefeaturespeciEicationsbelowfortheshortvowelsystem(1972:133):
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –
NoticethattheyshowapatternofunderspeciEicationthatischaracteristicofabranchingtree:theEirstfeatureappliestoallthephonemes,andthescopesoftheremainingfeaturesgetprogressivelysmaller.
Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features
i u
e
a
100
Antonsen(1972:132–133)supportsthesefeaturespeciEicationsbycitingpatternsofphonologicalactivity(neutralizations,harmony,anddistributionofallophones)andloanwordadaptationfromLatin.
Thus,basedontheevidencefromthedescendantdialects,heassumesthat*/a/hadallophones*[a, æ, ə, ɒ],whichallhaveincommonthattheyare[+low].
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –[+low]
Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features
i u
e
a
101
Further,thereisevidencethat*/i/and*/u/hadloweredallophonesbefore*/a/,againsuggestingthat*/a/hada[+low]featurethatcouldaffectvowelheight.
Andthereisnoevidencethat*/a/hadanyotheractivefeatures(thatis,featuresthatplayedaroleinthephonologybyaffectingneighbouringsegments,orthatgrouped*/a/withothersegmentsasanaturalclass).
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –
Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features
i u
e
a
102
[+low]
Asthefeaturethatdistinguishes*/u/from*/i/and*/e/Antonsenchooses[rounded].
Hisreasonisthatalltheallophonesof*/u/wererounded.
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –
[+rounded]
WewillreturnshortlytothisspeciEicaspectoftheanalysis.
Proto-Germanic Contrastive Features
i u
e
a
103
[+low]
Antonsenobservesthatthecontrastbetween*/i/and*/e/wasneutralizedinenvironmentsthataffectedtongueheight(beforehighfrontvowels,lowvowels,andbeforenasalclusters).
Hearguesthatthissupportsdistinguishing*/i/and*/e/byonefeature,[high].
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –
Henotesthatthenegativespecificationsof*/e/areconsistentwithitbeing“theonlyvowelwhichdoesnotcauseumlautassimilationsinaprecedingrootsyllable”.
[+low]
[+high] [+rounded]
i u
e
a
Proto-Germanic Contrastive Features
104
Aselegantasthisanalysisis,Iwillfollowthemajority,includingLass(1994),Ringe (2006:148),andPurnell&Raimy(2015),inassumingthatthefeaturethatdistinguishes*/i,e/from*/u/is[front],not[rounded].
Thereasonisthat*/i/couldcauseallophonicfrontingof*/u/,whichsuggestsithadanactivefeature[+front].
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Front – + +High + –
[+high][+front]
Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features
i u
e
a
105
[+low]
Proto-Germanic feature hierarchyWiththisamendment,thecontrastivefeaturehierarchyfortheProto-Germanicshortvowelslookslikethis.
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –
High + –
[+high]
*/i/
[–high]
*/e/
[+front] [–front]
*/u/
[–low][+low]
*/a/
[low] > [front] > [high]
Front – + +
Alltheactivefeaturesarecontrastive,aspertheContrastivistHypothesis.
Moreover,thisanalysisexplainswhycertainvowelsparticipateincertainprocessesandothersdonot.
106
Proto-Germanic feature hierarchy
Noticethatthefeature[round]playsnoroleinthecontrastivephonologyatthispoint.
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –
High + –
[+high]
*/i/
[–high]
*/e/
[+front] [–front]
*/u/
[–low][+low]
*/a/
[low] > [front] > [high]
Front – + +
ThisaspectoftheanalysiswillsoonbecomeverysigniEicant!
107
108
Part II: A Theory of Contrast
5. Diachronic Phonology:
West Germanic i-Umlaut
Introduc)on
Part I
Part II
1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT
3. Acquisi)on: BPvowel system
4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels
5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut
Conclusions
108
Monday 26 October 2020
Diachronicstudies usingcontrastivefeaturehierarchiesinclude:Zhang (1996) and Dresher & Zhang (2005) on Manchu; Barrie (2003) on Cantonese; Rohany Rahbar(2008) on Persian; Dresher (2009: 215–225) on East Slavic; Ko (2010, 2011, 2018) on Korean,Mongolic, and Tungusic; Compton & Dresher (2011) on Inuit; Gardner (2012), Roeder & Gardner(2013), and Purnell & Raimy (2013) on North American English vowel shifts; Harvey (2012) on Ob-Ugric (Khanty and Mansi); Oxford (2012, 2015) on Algonquian; Voeltzel (2016), Schalin (2017), andSandstedt (2018) on Scandinavian; and Krekoski (2017) on Chinese tonal systems.
Contrastivehierarchies havebeenfruitfullyappliedtophonologicalchangeinavarietyoflanguages.
Contrast shiX and phonological change
SomestudiesutilizingaversionofCHTarelistedbelow.
109
ContrastiveHierarchyTheorycanshednewlightonalong-standingconundruminthehistoryofWestGermanic.
Itconcernstheruleofi-umlaut,andillustrateshowapost-lexicalphoneticrulecanbecomelexical,andhowanenhancementfeaturecanbecomecontrastive.
West Germanic i-umlaut
110
ItalsoprovidesaniceempiricaltestofwhatNevins(2015)callsthe“Oops,INeedThat”Problem.
Thisproblemreferstoasituationwhereanon-contrastivefeatureisneededbythephonology.
The “Oops, I Need That” Problem
AccordingtotheContrastivistHypothesis,thissituationshouldnotarise,becauseonlycontrastivefeaturesshouldbeactive.
Thus,the“Oops,INeedThat”ProblemwouldindicateanapparentcounterexampletotheContrastivistHypothesis.
111
Proto-Germanic feature hierarchy
Recallthat*/i/and*/u/hadloweredallophonesduetotheinEluenceofthe[+low]*/a/.
*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –
High + –
[+high]
*/i/
[–high]
*/e/
[+front] [–front]
*/u/
[–low][+low]
*/a/
[low] > [front] > [high]
Front – + +
InWestGermanic,theloweredallophoneof*/u/developedintoanewphoneme*/o/.
112
Thisnewphonemefilledagapinthesystemandbroughtthe[–front]branchintosymmetrywiththe[+front]branch.
Therefore,thenewvoweldidnotrequireachangetotheinheritedProto-Germanicshortvowelfeaturehierarchy.
Notethatthefeature[round]isstillnot contrastiveatthispoint.
West Germanic feature hierarchy
[+front] [–front]
[low]>[front]>[high]
[+high] [–high]*/i/ */e/
[+high] [–high]*/u/ */o/
[–low][+low]*/a/
113
West Germanic i-umlaut
*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iWestGermanic‘evilN .S .’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss
Theruleofi-umlautbeganinearlyGermanicasaphoneticprocessthatcreatedfrontedallophonesofthebackvowelswhen*/i(ː)/or*/j/followed(V.Kiparsky1932;Twaddell1938;Benediktsson 1967;Antonsen1972;Penzl 1972).
Intheexamplesbelow,*/u/and*/oː/arebothfronted(to*[y]and*[ø],respectively)before/i/inthefollowingsyllable:
114
i-umlautcruciallypreservestheroundednatureofthefrontedvowels;butinouranalysisoftheWestGermanicvowelsystem,[round]isnotcontrastive.
Uh-oh!Isthisan“Oops,INeedThat”Problem?
i-umlaut: Oops, I need that?
[+front] [–front]
[low]>[front]>[high]
[+high] [–high]*/i/ */e/
[+high] [–high]*/u/ */o/
[–low][+low]*/a/
115
*u b i l[–low][–front][+high]{+round}
[–low][+front][+high]{–round}
*y b i l[–low][+front][+high]{+round}
[–low][+front][+high]{–round}
Therefore,{round} isavailableasanenhancementfeatureatthepointthat*/u,o/arefronted.
No!Forindependentreasons,manycommentators,beginningwithV.Kiparsky(1932)andTwaddell(1938),proposedthati-umlautbeganasalatephonetic rule,andwasnot partofthecontrastivephonology.
i-umlaut: I don’t need it, it’s an enhancement feature!
116
*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iPre-OldEnglish‘evilN .S .’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss
117
Pre-Old English i-umlaut
Overtime,however,thereisevidencethati-umlautbecamealexicalrule.
i-umlaut becomes opaque
*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iPre-OldEnglish‘evilN.S.’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss
AlreadyinearlyOldEnglish,theunstressed/i/triggerofi-umlautwaseitherloweredafteralightsyllable,asinyfel,
118
ordeletedafteraheavysyllable,asinføːt. Thesechangesmadei-umlautopaqueonthesurface.Inmanycases,thei-umlauttriggerbecameunrecoverabletolearners.
yfel føːt i-lowering/deletion
i-umlaut becomes opaque
yfil —i-umlaut/ufil/ /yfel/Underlying
‘evilN .S .’ ‘evilN .S .’Gloss
Accordingtostandardaccounts,thisledtothephonologization of[y(:)] and[ø(:)] asnewphonemes.
119
Anexampleis‘evil’,whoseunderlyingformisrestructuredfrom/uEil/ to/yfel/.
yfel —i-lowering/deletion[yfel] [yfel]Surface
Oldergrammar Newergrammar
Aslongasi-umlautremainsaphoneticprocess,itisnotclearhowitcouldsurvivethelossofitstriggeringcontexts;whydoesn’t/ufel/surfaceas*[ufel]?
Phonologization paradox
—i-umlaut
/ufel/Underlying
—i-lowering
Afterlossofi-umlauttrigger
PostlexicalPhonology
Severalscholarshavepointedoutaproblemwiththisaccount(Liberman1991;Fertig1996;Janda2003;P.Kiparsky2015).
Theonlywayfori-umlauttopersistisifitentersthelexicalphonologywhile [y(:)]and[ø(:)] arestillpredictableallophonesof/u(:)/ and/o(:)/,respectively.
120
*[ufel]Surface
Thisaccountraisestwoquestions:
! First,why doesi-umlautenterthelexicalphonologywhileitsproductsarenotcontrastive?
P.Kiparsky (2015)suggeststhatitisbecausethenewfrontroundedallophoneswereperceptuallymoresalient thantheirtriggers(cf.Jakobson,Fant,&Halle1952),whichwerebecomingprogressivelyweakerastimewhenon.
Phonologiza*on paradox
121
! How dotheproductsofi-umlautenterthelexicalphonologywhentheyinvolvenon-contrastivefeaturesthatoriginateinenhancement?
TothisquestionContrastiveHierarchyTheorycancontributeanold/newsolutionbasedonthenotionofcontrastshift.
Ifindthisexplanationtobequitecompelling;butitraisesanotherquestion:
Phonologiza*on paradox
122
“Onceaphonologicalchangehastakenplace,thefollowingquestionsmustbeasked:
Contrast and phonological change
Old,becauseinanarticleEirstpublishedin1931,RomanJakobsonproposedthatdiachronicphonologymustlookatcontrastshifts(Jakobson1962[1931]).
Whatexactlyhasbeenmodi=iedwithinthephonologicalsystem?
…hasthestructureofindividualoppositions[contrasts]beentransformed?Orinotherwords,hastheplaceofaspeci=icoppositionbeenchanged…?”
123
Salience and contrast shiXButalsonew,becausethatprogramwasnevercarriedout;CHTgivesusawell-definedwaytolookatcontrastshifts.
Letusrevisitthestagewheni-umlautwasstillapost-enhancementrule.
AdaptingKiparsky’s idea,Iproposethattheperceptualsalienceofthefrontroundedallophonescausedlearnerstohypothesizethat{round} isacontrastivefeature.
*u b i l[–low][–front][+high]{+round}
[–low][+front][+high]{–round}
*y b i l[–low][+front][+high]{+round}
[–low][+front][+high]{–round}
124
ItwasnotpartoftheearlierWestGermanicfeaturehierarchy.
Contrast shiX in West Germanic
Laterhierarchy:
[low]>[front]>[high]Earlierhierarchy:
[front]>[round]>[high]
Onesuchhierarchyisshownbelow.
Butwecanconstructanothercontrastivehierarchythatincludes[round].
125
Thisnewhierarchy,however,requiresdemoting[low]tomakeroomfor[round].
Contrast shiX in West Germanic
Laterhierarchy:
[low]>[front]>[high]Earlierhierarchy:
[front]>[round]>[high]
Hopefullynotafeaturethatweneed!
Thisishowcontrastivehierarchieswork:onecanintroduceorpromoteafeature,butthereisatrade-off:anotherfeaturehastobedemoted.
126
Inthenewfeaturehierarchy,thevowelsareEirstdividedinto[+front]/i,e/and[–front]/u,o,a/.
[+front]
[+high] [–high]
/i/ /e/ /a/
/u/ /o/
[+high][–high]
[–front]
[+round] [–round]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2
127
Then[±round]divides/u,o/from/a/.
[front]>[round]>[high]
Finally,[±high]completesthecontrastivefeatures.
Now,wheni-umlautchangesthe[–front,+round] vowels/u,o/to[+front],theresultisnewfrontroundedvowels,whichbeginasallophones.
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2
/u, o/
[–front][+round][αhigh]
[y, ø]
[+front][+round][αhigh]
128
Hereiswhatthederivedtreelookslike.Thenewfrontroundedvowels[y, ø]arenotunderlying,butareallophonesof/u,o/.
[+front]
[–round]
[+high] [–high]
/i/ /e/
[+round]
[+high][–high]
[y] [ø]
/a/
/u/ /o/
[+round] [–round]
[+high][–high]
[–front]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2
/u, o/
[–front][+round][αhigh]
[y, ø]
[+front][+round][αhigh]
129
Althoughtheyareallophones,theycanariseinthecontrastivephonologybecausetheyconsistonlyofcontrastivefeatures.
[+front]
[–round]
[+high] [–high]
/i/ /e/
[+round]
[+high][–high]
[y] [ø] /u/ /o/
[+round]
[+high][–high]
[–front]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2
/u, o/
[–front][+round][αhigh]
[y, ø]
[+front][+round][αhigh]
/a/
[–round]
130
Deep allophones
Deepallophonesarepossiblebecausecontrastivefeaturescanbepredictableinahierarchicalapproach.
Wehavelefthangingonequestionthatyoumightbewonderingabout…
TheyarethuswhatMoulton(2003)calls‘deepallophones’;hewasreferringtotheOldEnglishvoicedfricatives,whichalsoariseearlyinthecontrastive(lexical)phonologyasallophonesofthevoicelessfricatives.
131
Recallthetrade-offthatthisanalysisrequires:
[+front]
[+high] [–high]
/i/ /e/ /a/
/u/ /o/
[+high][–high]
[–front]
[+round] [–round]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: Oops, I need that?
132
Inthenewhierarchy,/a/nolongerhasa[+low]feature.
[front]>[round]>[high]
Uhoh!Dowenowhavea“Oops,INeedThat”Problem?
No!/a/nolongerneedsa[+low]feature!
/a/
/u/ /o/
[+high][–high]
[–front]
[+round] [–round]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: No, I don’t need it!
133
Iknowofnoevidence— inOldEnglish,forexample—that/a/causesloweringofothersegments,orother-wiseneedsanactive[+low]feature.
Recallthatthisisinstrikingcontrasttoearlierstagesofthelanguage,wherethereisevidencethat*/a/causedlowering.
/a/
[–front]
[–round]
West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: No, I don’t need it!
134
ThistypeofconnectionbetweencontrastandactivityisexactlywhatContrastiveHierarchyTheorypredicts.
[+low]
*/a/
Hierarchy2Hierarchy1
Conclusion
Introduc)on
Part I: Historical Antecedents
Part II:A Theory of Contrast
Conclusion
135
Monday 26 October 2020
Tosumup,ContrastiveHierarchyTheorymakestestableempiricalpredictionsaboutphonologicalsystems,providesinterestingaccountsofacquisition,andanewwayoflookingatphonologicalinventories.
Conclusions
Ofcourse,manyquestionsremaintobeexplored:
!CantheContrastivistHypothesisbesustainedordoesthe“Oops,INeedThat”Problem(i.e.toomuch activity)arise?
!Conversely,whathappenswhenthereistoolittle activity?Doesphoneticsplayalargerroleindeterminingthefeatures(cf.Krekoski2017)?
!Arethereconstraints,apartfromcontrast,onwhatphonologicalfeaturescanbe?
136
!Howstablearecontrastivehierarchiesacrosstimeandspace?
IhavetriedtoshowthattheideasthatContrastiveHierarchyTheoryarebuiltonhavealongandevendistinguishedpedigreeinthehistoryofphonology.
!Howdolearnersacquirethefeaturehierarchyoftheirlanguage?
Forvariousreasons,thistheoryneverquitecametogetherinthe20th century.
Itismyhopethatthefullpotentialofthisapproachwillberealizedinthe21st.
Conclusions
137
For discussions and ideas I would like to thank Graziela Bohn,Elizabeth Cowper, Daniel Currie Hall, Paula Fikkert, Ross Godfrey,Christopher Harvey, Norbert Hornstein, Harry van der Hulst, BillIdsardi, Ross Krekoski, David Lightfoot, Sara Mackenzie, AndrewNevins, Will Oxford, Keren Rice, Christopher Spahr, and Zhang Xi.
Andthankyou!Muitoobrigado!
https://dresher.artsci.utoronto.caFormorerecentpapersandtalks,pleasesee:
138
ReferencesAntonsen,ElmerH.1972.TheProto-Germanicsyllabics(vowels).InFransvanCoetsem &HerbertL.Kufner(eds.),TowardagrammarofProto-Germanic,117–140.Tubingen:MaNiemeyer.
Archangeli,Diana.1988.UnderspeciVicationinphonology.Phonology 5(2):183–207.Barbosa,Plınio A.&EleonoraCavalcanteAlbano.2004.BrazilianPortuguese.JournaloftheInternationalPhoneticsAssociation 34:227–32.
Barrie,Mike.2003.ContrastinCantonesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:1–19.Benediktsson,Hreinn.1967.TheProto-Germanicvowelsystem.InTohonorRomanJakobson,Vol.1,174–96.TheHague&Paris:Mouton.
Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2015.AquisiçaodasvogaistonicasepretonicasdoPortuguesBrasileiro.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofSaoPaulo.
Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2017.Theacquisitionoftonicandpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.JournalofPortugueseLinguistics 16(7),1–5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.184
Bohn,Graziela Pigatto &RaquelSantanaSantos.2018.Theacquisitionofpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.Alfa:Revista deLinguística (SaoJosedoRioPreto)62(1):191–221.
Calabrese,Andrea.2005.Markednessandeconomyinaderivationalmodelofphonology.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
139
CamposAstorkiza,Judit Rebeka.2009.Minimalcontrastandthephonology– phoneticsinteraction.Munich:Lincom Europa.
Carvalho,JoaquimBrandao de.2011.Contrastivehierarchies,privativefeatures,andPortuguesevowels.Linguistica.Revista deestudos linguisticos dauniversidade doPorto 6:51–66.
Chomsky,Noam&MorrisHalle.1968.ThesoundpatternofEnglish.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.Clements,G.N.2001.Representationaleconomyinconstraint-basedphonology.InT.AlanHall,(ed.),Distinctivefeaturetheory,71–146.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
Clements,G.N.2003.Featureeconomyinsoundsystems.Phonology 20:287–333.Clements,G.N.2009.Theroleoffeaturesinspeechsoundinventories.InEricRaimy&CharlesE.Cairns(eds.),Contemporaryviewsonarchitectureandrepresentationsinphonologicaltheory,19–68.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Compton,Richard&B.ElanDresher.2011.Palatalizationand‘strongi’acrossInuitdialects.CanadianJournalofLinguistics/Revuecanadiennedelinguistique 56:203–28.
Dinnsen,DanielA.1992.Variationindevelopingandfullydevelopedphoneticinventories.InCharlesA.Ferguson,LisaMenn,&CarolStoel-Gammon(eds.),Phonologicaldevelopment:Models,research,implications,191–210.Timonium,MD:YorkPress.
Dinnsen,DanielA.1996.Context-sensitiveunderspeciVicationandtheacquisitionofphoneticcontrasts.JournalofChildLanguage 23:31–55.
140
Dinnsen,DanielA.,StevenB.Chin,MaryElbert,&ThomasW.Powell.1990.Someconstraintsonfunctionallydisorderedphonologies:Phoneticinventoriesandphonotactics.JournalofSpeechandHearingResearch33:28–37.
Dresher,B.Elan.1998a.Childphonology,learnability,andphonologicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Dresher,B.Elan.1998b.Oncontrastandredundancy.PresentedattheannualmeetingoftheCanadianLinguisticAssociation,Ottawa.Ms.,UniversityofToronto.
Dresher,B.Elan.2003.Contrastandasymmetriesininventories.InAnna-MariadiSciullo (ed.),Asymmetryingrammar,volume2:Morphology,phonology,acquisition,239–57.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.
Dresher,B.Elan.2018.ContrastiveFeatureHierarchiesinOldEnglishDiachronicPhonology.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety116(1):1–29.
Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.Toappear.Theroadnottaken:SPR andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.ToappearinJournalofLinguistics (CUP).
Dresher,B.Elan&HarryvanderHulst.Toappear.Leadingideasinphonology.InB.ElanDresher&HarryvanderHulst(eds.),TheOxfordhandbookofthehistoryofphonology. Oxford:OUP.
141
Dresher,B.Elan,Glyne L.Piggott,&KerenRice.1994.Contrastinphonology:Overview.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 13.1.iii-xvii.
Dresher,B.Elan&KerenRice.2007.Markednessandthecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.https://dresher.artsci.utoronto.ca/contrast/
Dresher,B.Elan&XiZhang.2005.ContrastandphonologicalactivityinManchuvowelsystems.CanadianJournalofLinguistics/Revuecanadienne delinguistique 50:45–82.
Dyck,Carrie.1995.Constrainingthephonology–phoneticsinterface,withexempliVicationfromSpanishandItaliandialects.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.
Fertig,David.1996.Phonology,orthography,andtheumlautpuzzle.InRosinaL.Lippi-Green&JosephC.Salmons(eds.),Germaniclinguistics:Syntacticanddiachronic,169–184.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Fikkert,Paula.1994.Ontheacquisitionofprosodicstructure(HILDissertations6). Dordrecht:ICGPrinting.Gardner,MattHunt.2012.Beyondthephonologicalvoid:ContrastandtheCanadianShift.Ms.,DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofToronto.
Hall,DanielCurrie.2007.Theroleandrepresentationofcontrastinphonologicaltheory.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.
Hall,DanielCurrie.2011.Phonologicalcontrastanditsphoneticenhancement:Dispersedness withoutdispersion.Phonology28:1–54.
142
Halle,Morris.1959.ThesoundpatternofRussian:Alinguisticandacousticalinvestigation.TheHague:Mouton.Secondprinting,1971.
Harvey,Christopher.2012.ContrastiveshiftinOb-UgricVowelsystems.Ms.,DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofToronto.
Hirayama,Manami.2003.ContrastinJapanesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:115–32.Ingram,David.1988.Jakobsonrevisited:SomeevidencefromtheacquisitionofPolishphonology.Lingua75:55–82.
Ingram,David.1989.Firstlanguageacquisition:Method,descriptionandexplanation.Cambridge:CUP.Jakobson,Roman.1941.Kindersprache,Aphasie,undallgemeine Lautgesetze.Uppsala:UppsalaUniversitetsArsskrift.
Jakobson,Roman.1962[1931].PhonemicnotesonStandardSlovak.InSelectedwritingsI.Phonologicalstudies,221–30.TheHague:Mouton.[InCzechinSlovenská miscellanea(StudiespresentedtoAlbertPražak).Bratislava,1931.]
Jakobson,Roman.1968.Childlanguage,aphasia,andphonologicaluniversals.TranslationbyA.R.Keiler ofJakobson1941.TheHague:Mouton.
Jakobson,Roman.1974.Lenguaje infantil yafasia.TranslationbyEstherBenıtezofJakobson1941.Madrid:Ayuso.
Jakobson,Roman,C.GunnarM.Fant,&MorrisHalle.1952.Preliminariestospeechanalysis.MITAcousticsLaboratory,TechnicalReport,No.13.ReissuedbyMITPress,Cambridge,Mass.,EleventhPrinting,1976.
143
Jakobson,Roman&MorrisHalle.1956.Fundamentalsoflanguage.TheHague:Mouton.Janda,RichardD.2003.“Phonologization”asthestartofdephoneticization – or,onsoundchangeanditsaftermath:Ofextension,generalization,lexicalization,andmorphologization.InBrianD.Joseph&RichardD.Janda,(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricallinguistics,401–422.Oxford:Blackwell.
Jones,Daniel.1967.Thephoneme:Itsnatureanduse,3rdedition(withanAppendion thehistoryandmeaningoftheterm“phoneme”).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Keyser,SamuelJay&KennethN.Stevens.2001.Enhancementrevisited.InMichaelJ.Kenstowicz (ed.),KenHale:Alifeinlanguage,271–91.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.
Keyser,SamuelJay&KennethN.Stevens.2006.Enhancementandoverlapinthespeechchain.Language 82:33–63.
Kiparsky,Paul.2015.Phonologization.InPatrickHoneybone &JosephSalmons(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricalphonology,563–79.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kiparsky,Valentin.1932.Johdatusta fonologiaan.Virittäjä 36:230–50.Ko,Seongyeon.2010.Acontrastivist viewontheevolutionoftheKoreanvowelsystem.ProceedingsoftheSixthWorkshoponAltaicFormalLinguistics(WAFL6).MITWorkingPapersinLinguistics 61:181–96.
Ko,Seongyeon.2011.VowelcontrastandvowelharmonyshiftintheMongoliclanguages.ProceedingsoftheSeventhWorkshoponAltaicFormalLinguistics(WAFL7).MITWorkingPapersinLinguistics 62:187–202.
Ko,Seongyeon.2018.TonguerootharmonyandvowelcontrastinNortheastAsianlanguages.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.
144
Krekoski,Ross.2017.ContrastandcomplexityinChinesetonalsystems.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.
Lass,Roger.1994.OldEnglish:Ahistoricallinguisticcompanion.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Levelt,ClaraC.1989.Anessayonchildphonology.M.A.thesis,LeidenUniversity.Liberman,Anatoly.1991.PhonologizationinGermanic:Umlautsandvowelshifts.InElmerH.Antonsen &HansHenrichHock(eds.),Stæfcræft:StudiesinGermaniclinguistics,125–37.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Lightner,TheodoreMcGraw.1963.Anoteontheformationofphonologicalrules.Quarterlyprogressreport(ResearchLaboratoryofElectronics,MIT)68:187–9.
Mackenzie,Sara.2009.Contrastandsimilarityinconsonantharmonyprocesses:Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.
Mielke,Jeff.2008.Theemergenceofdistinctivefeatures.Oxford:OUP.Moulton,Keir.2003.DeepallophonesintheOldEnglishlaryngealsystem.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:157–73.
Nevins,Andrew.2010.Localityinvowelharmony. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Nevins,Andrew.2012.VowellenitionandfortitioninBrazilianPortuguese.Letras deHoje 47(3):228–33.Nevins,Andrew.2015.Triumphsandlimitsofthecontrastivity-onlyhypothesis.LinguisticVariation 15(1):41–68.
Oxford,Will.2012.‘Contrastshift’intheAlgonquianlanguages.ProceedingsfromtheMontreal-Ottawa-Toronto(MOT)PhonologyWorkshop2011:Phonologyinthe21stCentury:InHonourofGlyne Piggott.McGillWorkingPapersinLinguistics 22(1).9pages.http://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/Viles/mcgwpl/oxford2012_0.pdf. 145
Oxford,Will.2015.Patternsofcontrastinphonologicalchange:EvidencefromAlgonquianvowelsystems.Language 91:308–57.
Padgett,Jaye.2003.Contrastandpost-velarfrontinginRussian.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory 21:39–87.
Penzl,Herbert.1972.MethodsofcomparativeGermaniclinguistics.InFransvanCoetsem &HerbertL.Kufner(eds.),TowardagrammarofProto-Germanic,1–43.Tubingen:MaNiemeyer.
Purnell,Thomas&EricRaimy.2013.Contrastivefeaturesinphoneticimplementation:TheEnglishvowelsystem.PresentedattheCUNYPhonologyForumConferenceOnTheFeature,January2013.
Purnell,Thomas&EricRaimy.2015.Distinctivefeatures,levelsofrepresentationandhistoricalphonology.InPatrickHoneybone &JosephSalmons(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricalphonology,522–44.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Pye,Clifton,DavidIngram,&HelenList.1987.AcomparisonofinitialconsonantacquisitioninEnglishandQuiche.InKeithE.Nelson&AnnVanKleeck(eds.),Children'slanguage(vol.6),175–90.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Rice,Keren.2003.Featuralmarkednessinphonology:Variation.InLisaCheng&Rint Sybesma (eds.),ThesecondGlot Internationalstate-of-the-articlebook:Thelatestinlinguistics,387–427.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
Rice,Keren.2007.Markednessinphonology.InPauldeLacy(ed.),TheCambridgehandbookofphonology,79–97.Cambridge:CUP.
146
Ringe,Donald.2006.AhistoryofEnglish:FromProto-Indo-EuropeantoProto-Germanic(AlinguistichistoryofEnglish,Vol.1).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.OxfordScholarshipOnline(www.oxfordscholarship.com).
Roeder,RebeccaV.&MattHuntGardner.2013.ThephonologyoftheCanadianShiftrevisited:ThunderBayandCapeBreton.UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics(SelectedPapersfromNWAV41)19.2:161–70.
Rohany Rahbar,Elham.2008.AhistoricalstudyofthePersianvowelsystem.KansasWorkingPapersinLinguistics 30:233–45.
Samuels,BridgetD.2011.Phonologicalarchitecture:Abiolinguisticperspective.Oxford:OUP.Sandstedt,Jade.2018.FeaturespeciVicationsandcontrastinvowelharmony:TheorthographyandphonologyofOldNorwegianheightharmony.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofEdinburgh.
Sapir,Edward.1925.Soundpatternsinlanguage.Language 1:37–51.Schalin,Johan.2017.Scandinavianumlautandcontrastivefeaturehierarchies.NOWELE 70(2):171–254.Spahr,Christopher.2012.PositionalneutralizationintheContrastiveHierarchy:Thecaseofphonologicalvowelreduction.Ms.,UniversityofToronto.Availableathttp://individual.utoronto.ca/spahr/.
Spahr,Christopher.2014.Acontrastivehierarchicalaccountofpositionalneutralization.TheLinguisticReview31(3–4):551–85.
Stanley,Richard.1967.Redundancyrulesinphonology.Language 43:393–436.Stevens,KennethN.&SamuelJayKeyser.1989.Primaryfeaturesandtheirenhancementinconsonants.Language 65:81–106.
147
Stevens,KennethN.,SamuelJayKeyser&HarukoKawasaki.1986.Towardaphoneticandphonologicaltheoryofredundantfeatures.InJosephS.Perkell &DennisH.Klatt(eds.),Symposiumoninvarianceandvariabilityofspeechprocesses,432–69.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Sweet,Henry.1877.Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1939.Grundzuge derPhonologie.Gottingen:Vandenhoek &Ruprecht.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1969.Principlesofphonology.TranslationbyChristianeA.M.Baltaxe ofTrubetzkoy1939.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Trubetzkoy,N.S.2001[1936].Atheoryofphonologicaloppositions.InAnatolyLiberman(ed.),Studiesingenerallinguisticsandlanguagestructure,14–21.TranslatedbyMarvinTaylor&AnatolyLiberman.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.[Essai d’une theorie desoppositionsphonologiques.Journaldepsychologie normale etpathologique 33(1936),5–18.]
Trubetzkoy,N.S.2019.Principiosdefonología.NuevatraduccionyversioncrıticadeEstherHerreraZendeyasyMichaelHerbertKnapp.MexicoCity:ElColegiodeMexico,CentrodeEstudiosLinguısticosyLiterarios.
Twaddell,W.Freeman.1938.AnoteonOHGumlaut.Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 30:177–181.Voeltzel,Laurence.2016.Morphophonologiedeslanguesscandinaves:Hierarchiesegmentaleetcomplexitesyllabique.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofNantes.
Zhang,Xi.1996.VowelsystemsoftheManchu-TunguslanguagesofChina.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.
148